Redash MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'wait for the results', implying synchronous behavior, but fails to address critical aspects like error handling, timeout behavior (despite a 'max_age' parameter), authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a tool that executes queries, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational characteristics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise—a single sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently communicates the basic purpose. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of executing SQL queries (which involves data sources, query syntax, and result handling), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, it fails to provide necessary context about inputs, outputs, or behavioral expectations. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional information.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the three parameters (data_source_id, query, max_age) are documented in the schema. The description adds no semantic information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what 'data_source_id' refers to, what format 'query' should be in, or what 'max_age' represents. This forces the agent to guess parameter meanings, which is inadequate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('execute a SQL query and wait for the results'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_data_source' and 'list_data_sources' by focusing on query execution rather than data source retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what resource it acts upon beyond 'SQL query', which prevents a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing a valid data source ID, nor does it differentiate from potential other query execution tools. Without any context on when or why to choose this tool, the agent lacks decision-making support.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.